Tom Coburn, a Senator from Oklahoma, was in the House of Representatives when Newt was Speaker. Coburn was on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace yesterday. I don’t know that I’ve got the bite. Let Doesn’t matter. So Coburn basically said, “Look, Newt was a lousy leader.” Chris Wallace said, “Well, why? How?” “Well, I’m not gonna go there. I’m just gonna tell you he was a lousy leader. He did a horrible leader but I’m not gonna go say how.” “Well, come on, you can’t just leave it there!” “I’m not going there. He’s a lousy leader;” and Wallace said, “Okay, well, that’s it, we’re out of time.” That’s how the show ended, or the interview. There are apparently (so goes the story) a lot of other Republicans who served in the House at the same time who, we are told, feel the same way about Newt. That he’s a lousy leader and that they’re waiting in the wings to come out and say so.
What Coburn said — this is Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma — was, “There’s all types of leaders, leaders that instill confidence, leaders that are somewhat abrupt and brisk, leaders that have one standard for the people that they’re leading and a different standard for themselves. I just found his leadership lacking,” and he wouldn’t explain further — and for Chris Wallace it was like pulling pork. He tried to get it all out of Coburn. Coburn wouldn’t go any further, which he really didn’t have to. That said enough. By the way… (interruption) What? (interruption) Well, yes, people change. Yeah. Change is hard because it’s uncomfortable. Change is hard ’cause it’s uncomfortable; ’94 was big change. People can change. Newt’s saying his changed. Snerdley is asking me, “Can people change?”
Yeah. Newt’s saying that he’s matured. He’s seen the error of his ways back then and so forth. I mean, he can’t deny his past. He has to acknowledge it and explain it somehow. Look, folks, I’m not recommending or endorsing. I don’t want you to misunderstand. I’m just telling you what’s going on. In one sense… (chuckle) I never thought I’d hear myself saying this, but in one sense all this chaos is kind of entertaining, and it is serving a purpose. It really is serving a purpose. The sad thing is we’re not getting this, and we never get this on the left — or very rarely. We have had circuses. I take that back. We have had then. We haven’t had it with Obama. If there is a walking circus, it is Obama and this regime, but it’s not being explored.
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Cave Junction, Oregon. This is Diane. Great to have you here. Hi.
CALLER: Hi.
RUSH: Hi.
CALLER: Hi, Rush.
RUSH: Hi.
CALLER: I want to tell you that Newt Gingrich is not a conservative. I'm an ultraconservative, and Newt Gingrich is not a conservative. He supports illegal immigration, and he supports global warming, and he took TARP money; and it was maybe while he was lobbying, but none of those are conservative issues.
RUSH: What you mean took TARP money? You talking about when he worked at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac?
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: And he was lobbying, and a conservative --
RUSH: He says he was a historian there, not lobbying.
CALLER: Well, at any rate, he still supports all of those things, and you cannot be conservative and support those things, and he may have balanced the budget, but balancing the budget is a thing of the past, and now all of these issues that he has are things that still pertain to the budget, big time.
RUSH: By the way, since you mention that, I have a story here from TheHill.com. You might find this interesting, Diane: "House minority leader Nancy Pelosi is holding back some information on Republican Newt Gingrich that could detract from his presidential campaign, according to a report published Monday. 'One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich,' Pelosi told Talking Points Memo. 'When the time is right. ... I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff.'" So Pelosi plans to reveal the goods on Gingrich when the time is right. It's just posted at the Hill's blog called The Briefing Room. What do you think of that?
CALLER: That may be that she has more information on him, but I also know he came out and did a commercial in support and you don't come out with a commercial if you're not in support of something. If that's the case and he's on one side and the other then he's a turncoat, isn't he?
RUSH: Well, he says. And, by the way, I'm not defending him. I don't want you to misunderstand. I'm not arguing with you. I'm just telling you: He says that was one of the biggest political mistakes he's ever made. He's tried to walk that back.
CALLER: Well, that's nice, but how about the illegal immigration? He's not walking that back? His thing of 25 years, well, that's like being... You know, you can't do a little bit of immigration and then have the rest of his policies. You can't be a little bit pregnant. You're either for immigration or you're against it.
RUSH: I don't know. I think the feminazi have done a lot on that score. I think you can be a little bit pregnant. It depends on when you end it. At any rate, I get your point, but I think I say funny. Okay, so Pelosi apparently threatening to expose privileged information here. That's what these threatening to do. This is not public stuff, and she's threatening to expose privileged information. So much for ethics. Diane, look. Everybody knows what you say is true. Everybody knows it. And right now Newt's leading in the polls. What are you shaking your head at? (interruption) Everybody knows it. Everybody knows it. I'm gonna tell you something. Everybody knows, everything you said about Newt is true. And a lot of these people think that Newt is salvageable. A lot of people supporting Newt think that he's salvageable, that once you embarrass him on this stuff, he'll walk it back. The problem is he still comes up with it. The problem with Newt is that he has a gazillion thoughts every day and he verbalizes every one of them. It's a discipline thing. But on the other side of this is Obama. On the other side of it's Obama who is not salvageable. From our point of view, Obama isn't salvageable.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, I'll tell you something else that's coming. Tom Coburn, a Senator from Oklahoma, was in the House of Representatives when Newt was Speaker. Coburn was on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace yesterday. I don't know that I've got the bite. Let Doesn't matter. So Coburn basically said, "Look, Newt was a lousy leader." Chris Wallace said, "Well, why? How?" "Well, I'm not gonna go there. I'm just gonna tell you he was a lousy leader. He did a horrible leader but I'm not gonna go say how." "Well, come on, you can't just leave it there!" "I'm not going there. He's a lousy leader;" and Wallace said, "Okay, well, that's it, we're out of time." That's how the show ended, or the interview. There are apparently (so goes the story) a lot of other Republicans who served in the House at the same time who, we are told, feel the same way about Newt. That he's a lousy leader and that they're waiting in the wings to come out and say so.
What Coburn said -- this is Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma -- was, "There's all types of leaders, leaders that instill confidence, leaders that are somewhat abrupt and brisk, leaders that have one standard for the people that they're leading and a different standard for themselves. I just found his leadership lacking," and he wouldn't explain further -- and for Chris Wallace it was like pulling pork. He tried to get it all out of Coburn. Coburn wouldn't go any further, which he really didn't have to. That said enough. By the way... (interruption) What? (interruption) Well, yes, people change. Yeah. Change is hard because it's uncomfortable. Change is hard 'cause it's uncomfortable; '94 was big change. People can change. Newt's saying his changed. Snerdley is asking me, "Can people change?"
Yeah. Newt's saying that he's matured. He's seen the error of his ways back then and so forth. I mean, he can't deny his past. He has to acknowledge it and explain it somehow. Look, folks, I'm not recommending or endorsing. I don't want you to misunderstand. I'm just telling you what's going on. In one sense... (chuckle) I never thought I'd hear myself saying this, but in one sense all this chaos is kind of entertaining, and it is serving a purpose. It really is serving a purpose. The sad thing is we're not getting this, and we never get this on the left -- or very rarely. We have had circuses. I take that back. We have had then. We haven't had it with Obama. If there is a walking circus, it is Obama and this regime, but it's not being explored. All right, who's next?
Chris in Camus, Washington, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. How are you today?
RUSH: Eh. Eh.
CALLER: (chuckles)
RUSH: Eh, okay. How are you?
CALLER: Well, we got sun up here in Camus, which is just on the good side of Portland, Oregon.
RUSH: Okay, good.
CALLER: So I think we're fantastic.
RUSH: Good, good, good.
CALLER: Hey, the question I have is, a while back Newt said some disparaging things about the Tea Party, and then here he is rising up in the ranks on the polls.
RUSH: Yeah. I know. He said some disparaging things about the beloved Paul Ryan. He said Ryan's Medicare plan was nothing but "right-wing social engineering." You know that was, by the way? Can I be honest? They're gonna hate me for this. That is pure jealousy. Ryan was getting accolades for that and I think that's why Newt disparaged it a bit.
CALLER: Well, the question I have is: Does Newt have to recognize standpoint the influence of the Tea Party?
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: And if he does, you know, will that compel him to move to the right in the same way that Bill Clinton did back in '94 and '95 with the balanced budget?
RUSH: Does it disturb you at all that be it we're talking about Romney or Newt, that we have to push them to the right? Does that bother you at all? Does it bother you that they're just not there on their own?
CALLER: Well, if I'm waiting for the perfect candidate, it's not gonna happen.
RUSH: That's right.
CALLER: But you always --
RUSH: Except for Obama. Obama's Mr. Perfect everything.
CALLER: (laughing) And he's not doing me any good, either. But the question I always have is, if you look to the person are they able to move the ball forward with your agenda. Is Newt capable of that, and if he's not, then, you know, this process will eliminate him; and if he is, then he may stay up on top.
RUSH: Well, one thing that I think we all need to acknowledge here is that this is nowhere near over. Not one vote has been cast yet. All we're going on is polling data. Pure and simple. I'll never forget this, folks. In 2004, if you'll recall, Howard Dean had it wrapped up six months before the Hawkeye Cauci. All the polling data gave it to Howard Dean. There weren't a whole lot of other named Democrats even running. Howard Dean was it, and then the Hawkeye Cauci happened, and Howard Dean came in fourth, or third or seventh, whatever. He lost it sizeably. There was abject panic in the Democrat Party. This is when Howard Dean went out there and screamed, as you'll recall, after losing. At some appearance after the Hawkeye Cauci, he went "Graaaah!" and they knew it was over, and then who did they choose? They chose Kerry, and for one reason. Because of those left, the Democrats, they all said, "Well, that's the only guy that can win." They went the electability route, which is the mistake our side has also made.
"Weeeeell, I can't support X! X can't win."
We don't know that! Last time Huckabee was among the top tier, and what happened to that? So it's really kind of futile to start proclaiming things over with here and not a single vote's been cast yet.
END TRANSCRIPT
http://conservativebyte.com/2011/12/can-newt-bury-his-past/
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/12/05/can_newt_bury_his_past
The Huffington Post Jillian Berman
Though often blamed with making the calls that led the country to the brink of collapse, financial executives likely won't face criminal charges for their practices during the financial crisis, according to a former top U.S. investigator.
The Justice Department has decided that prosecution of financial executives is "better left to regulators" to take civil-enforcement actions, David Cardona, who was a deputy assistant director at the Federal Bureau of Investigation until last month, told the Wall Street Journal.
"There's been a realization and a more deliberate targeting by the Department of Justice before we launch criminally on some of these cases," Cardona told the WSJ.
Cardona's comments come nearly eight months after Senator Carl Levin released a report on Goldman Sachs' role in the financial crisis, which found the investment bank profited off purposefully deceiving its own clients at the height of the financial crisis. Levin then said he would recommend some of the investment bank's executives for possible criminal prosecution.
Government officials haven't successfully prosecuted a single Wall Street executive or financial firm since the meltdown, despite many Americans and experts blaming them for the decisions that led to the housing crisis and subsequent financial panic, according to CBS News.
In fact, Wall Street executives have offered a litany of others to blame for the crisis: consumers who took out mortgages they couldn't afford, investors who demanded the opportunity to buy risky securities, policymakers who didn't anticipate the housing crash -- even regulators, according to The New York Times.
One of the ways Wall Street firms have escaped criminal punishment is through a Justice Department directive issued in the summer of 2008. The new process, known as deferred prosecution, allows for some leniency if firms investigate and admit their own wrongdoing, the NYT reports. But many have derided the guidelines, saying that they're allowing perpetrators to get off too easily.
One outspoken critic, Judge Jed Rakoff, made a decision last month that may force the SEC to step up its enforcement of financial crimes, but likely won't lead to more criminal prosecutions. Rakoff rejected a proposed settlement between the SEC and Citigroup, saying the settlement didn't go far enough to punish the bank because Citi didn't have to admit wrongdoing.
Though the most egregious examples of financial regulators' softness may be related to the financial crisis, the pattern has been apparent for years. Federal prosecution of financial fraud is on track to fall to a 20-year low, according a recent report from Syracuse University. The number of these types of prosecutions has gotten smaller and smaller since 1999, the report found.